Your Gun Control Laws

[Rotobeast]

(12-10-2015, 10:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My upcoming acquisition will be a long rifle. Colonial era flintlock style. A local artisan is making it for me. I have functional firearms of course, but I love the ones that are pieces of art as well.

I find the progression of the mechanisms quite fascinating.
I am also intrigued by improvised firearms/weapons. (not that I plan on making any)

(12-10-2015, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've fired every bullet from 5.56mm to 152mm; yet, I've never been a big POW guy. I have 2 firearms at the house. A .40 cal S&W Pistol for the wife and concealed carry and a Mossberg 500 SP.   

What do you think of the .40 ?
I have a Para Ordnance 1911 (light double-action) chambered in it and it is one of my favs.

(12-10-2015, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure I am way past, "too many", in the opinion of most.  One of these days we'll have to do a, "Post yo gunz" thread.

Sounds like a great idea.
I wouldn't post everything, but I would post some.

[*bfine32*]

(12-10-2015, 11:32 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: What do you think of the .40 ?
I have a Para Ordnance 1911 (light double-action) chambered in it and it is one of my favs.

It is for the wife and it pushes her limits as far as kick and rack. It's a great mix between stopping power and handling. 

If I were getting on for myself, or if anybody in the forum is thinking of a Holiday Gift Idea for bfine, I'd go with the .45. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-10-2015, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of these days we'll have to do a, "Post yo gunz" thread.

Sounds like a cheap way to get pics of bfine shirtless. 

[Benton]

(12-10-2015, 11:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is for the wife and it pushes her limits as far as kick and rack. It's a great mix between stopping power and handling. 

If I were getting on for myself, or if anybody in the forum is thinking of a Holiday Gift Idea for bfine, I'd go with the .45. 

(12-10-2015, 11:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
Sounds like a cheap way to get pics of bfine shirtless. 

There's a joke in here somewhere.

[Benton]

(12-10-2015, 09:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Side question for you all......

How many firearms are "too many" ?

There's not.

Firearms are like cars. Whatever suit you needs. My personal favorite was a mini 14, but it got to the point where the ammo cost didn't justify the need to rapidly punch holes in paper.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2015, 12:27 AM)Benton Wrote: Firearms are like cars.

You have GOT to be shitting me!!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2015, 11:32 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: What do you think of the .40 ?
I have a Para Ordnance 1911 (light double-action) chambered in it and it is one of my favs.

I realize you didn't ask this of me, but I'll respond anyways.

The .40 S&W is kind of a running debate amongst my friends and I.  Most gun enthusiasts, outside of law enforcement, see it as a trendy and unnecessary round.  I personally like it quite a bit.  I have a Sig P229 in .40 and it's one of my favorite handguns.  It's a snappy round and thus requires good form to stay on target.  It's essentially a middle ground between 9mm and .45 ACP.  I will tell you this, we received a study at work several years back that addressed the "one shot stop", examining the best round to incapacitate and drop a suspect with one shot.  The number one round was .357 magnum and number two was .40 S&W.  I made sure to show my friends this study but it didn't really change their minds.


Quite simply the caliber debate is an ongoing and never ending excuse for firearm enthusiasts to constantly argue.  Whatever you like is whatever you like IMO.

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2015, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize you didn't ask this of me, but I'll respond anyways.

The .40 S&W is kind of a running debate amongst my friends and I.  Most gun enthusiasts, outside of law enforcement, see it as a trendy and unnecessary round.  I personally like it quite a bit.  I have a Sig P229 in .40 and it's one of my favorite handguns.  It's a snappy round and thus requires good form to stay on target.  It's essentially a middle ground between 9mm and .45 ACP.  I will tell you this, we received a study at work several years back that addressed the "one shot stop", examining the best round to incapacitate and drop a suspect with one shot.  The number one round was .357 magnum and number two was .40 S&W.  I made sure to show my friends this study but it didn't really change their minds.


Quite simply the caliber debate is an ongoing and never ending excuse for firearm enthusiasts to constantly argue.  Whatever you like is whatever you like IMO.

I know I say I see no need for semis, but I have to admit to lusting after the P229 a bit. Don't know whether I would go .40, .357 Sig, or 9mm though.

[Rotobeast]

(12-12-2015, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize you didn't ask this of me, but I'll respond anyways.

The .40 S&W is kind of a running debate amongst my friends and I.  Most gun enthusiasts, outside of law enforcement, see it as a trendy and unnecessary round.  I personally like it quite a bit.  I have a Sig P229 in .40 and it's one of my favorite handguns.  It's a snappy round and thus requires good form to stay on target.  It's essentially a middle ground between 9mm and .45 ACP.  I will tell you this, we received a study at work several years back that addressed the "one shot stop", examining the best round to incapacitate and drop a suspect with one shot.  The number one round was .357 magnum and number two was .40 S&W.  I made sure to show my friends this study but it didn't really change their minds.


Quite simply the caliber debate is an ongoing and never ending excuse for firearm enthusiasts to constantly argue.  Whatever you like is whatever you like IMO.

I agree.
Firearms and ammunition are tools and if it does the job for you, then you use it.
I really like the round, but I think I like the idea of double-action on a 1911 more so.
The double-stack offers 16 rounds and I think it's quite generous for that round.
The .40 was a 10mm shortened, was it not ?
I believe it became popular after the North Hollywood shootout, where the 9mm was not penetrating the doors of cars or windows, to get at the target.
I'm sure the more modern hot 9mm+ rounds would work now, but they needed something at the time.
I also like 9mm, as I have an old Ruger P89 with Hogue grips that I really dig.
I swear it is the AK of handguns.


Speaking of trendy rounds....
I'm thinking of getting a Glock 22 and the conversion barrels to shoot 9mm, .40, and .357 Sig.
Any experience with the .357 Sig round ?

You are ALWAYS welcome to chime in on anything firearm related.
The experience you hold is not always easy to come by and it is much appreciated when you share it.

[Rotobeast]

(12-12-2015, 08:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know I say I see no need for semis, but I have to admit to lusting after the P229 a bit. Don't know whether I would go .40, .357 Sig, or 9mm though.

I like those, as well.
I wonder if you can buy the conversions to shoot all three, like the Glock ?
The only Sig I have is a 232 SL.
I don't own a Glock, so that is why I mentioned it over the Sig. (that and capacity)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2015, 08:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know I say I see no need for semis, but I have to admit to lusting after the P229 a bit. Don't know whether I would go .40, .357 Sig, or 9mm though.

Do what I did, which is always a good idea  , and get it in .40 S&W. The reason being you can buy a .357 sig barrel, swap it in, use the same magazines and you've got the same gun in .357 sig as well.  Two guns for a little over $150 more.  This does not work in reverse as the mags that come with the .357 model are tapered towards the front and won't accept .40 rounds.  I've had no failure to feeds with this in case you're concerned.  I didn't even consider getting it in 9mm since I own three already and one of them, the CZ75 SP01 tactical, is easily my favorite handgun.

[Rotobeast]

(12-12-2015, 08:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  the CZ75 SP01 tactical, is easily my favorite handgun.

I need one of those, too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2015, 08:37 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree.
Firearms and ammunition are tools and if it does the job for you, then you use it.
I really like the round, but I think I like the idea of double-action on a 1911 more so.
The double-stack offers 16 rounds and I think it's quite generous for that round.
The .40 was a 10mm shortened, was it not ?

Yes, that's precisely correct and yet another reason why many enthusiasts look on it with disdain.  10mm was a dead round for some time but is starting to make a comeback.  I'm looking at a Glock 40 for my next handgun purchase.

Quote:I believe it became popular after the North Hollywood shootout, where the 9mm was not penetrating the doors of cars or windows, to get at the target.
I'm sure the more modern hot 9mm+ rounds would work now, but they needed something at the time.
I also like 9mm, as I have an old Ruger P89 with Hogue grips that I really dig.
I swear it is the AK of handguns.

It came into being after an FBI incident in Miami.  The FBi had adopted the 10mm and the joke now is that it proved to be too much of a round for them.

Quote:Speaking of trendy rounds....
I'm thinking of getting a Glock 22 and the conversion barrels to shoot 9mm, .40, and .357 Sig.
Any experience with the .357 Sig round ?

357 sig is essentially a higher velocity, snappier, 9mm.  I don't own a handgun specifically chambered in it but I can convert my Sig P229 to fire it is as I explained to Matt above.  Also, and this is always a consideration for me, the ammunition is both harder to find and generally more expensive.  This is one of the nice things about .40 S&W, you can always find it and it's generally cheap.

Quote:You are ALWAYS welcome to chime in on anything firearm related.  The experience you hold is not always easy to come by and it is much appreciated when you share it.

Appreciate it.  

[*bfine32*]

In an effort to stop the Las Vegas tragedy thread from becoming a petty back and forth. I thought I would bump this one.


It seems the current debate is now over silencers. If you have ever been inside an indoor firing range you may appreciate the need for silencers and I'm hesitant to vote for their outlaw.

As I've said a number of times: I'm not a huge 2nd Amendment proponent (I own one handgun and one shotgun), but is the answer to outlaw things that law abiding citizens wish to use? If a criminal wants to "silence"   the report he or she will find a way.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: In an effort to stop the Las Vegas tragedy thread from becoming a petty back and forth. I thought I would bump this one.


It seems the current debate is now over silencers. If you have ever been inside an indoor firing range you may appreciate the need for silencers and I'm hesitant to vote for their outlaw.

As I've said a number of times: I'm not a huge 2nd Amendment proponent (I own one handgun and one shotgun), but is the answer to outlaw things that law abiding citizens wish to use? If a criminal wants to "silence"   the report he or she will find a way.

Thanks for this, actually. I had forgotten about this thread. I'll post my quote from the LV thread here and delete my comment over there in hopes of furthering this discussion on this thread rather than the other one:

So, here is some information I brought up before on this topic when I was writing a policy proposal on it over the summer.

We have seen that there is a correlative relationship between the ease of legal availability of firearms and firearm violence. What we have also seen is that when a more restrictive area is neighbored by a less restrictive area, the restrictions are less effective (e.g. Chicago). We also see an increase in interstate gun trafficking from less restrictive areas to more restrictive (e.g. firearms from Virginia being used in crimes in northern states on the Atlantic coast).

Missouri has provided a great case study for this, as they had a license to purchase program for decades that included universal background checks for private transfers. When they ditched the program and became less restrictive on purchases and no longer requiring background checks for private transfers, in the years immediately following their firearm homicide rate increased and the number of firearms from Missouri used in violent crimes in neighboring states increased.

Now, this is all based on limited, privately funded research because there has been a stall on any government funded research thanks to some interpretations of legislation that have made the agencies that would handle this funding skittish to fund any. My suggestion is, first and foremost, study the issue to that we can look at the root causes of gun violence in our country and address those. Then, we see strong evidence that universal background checks are an effective measure, but they would be most effective if applied across the country. I will post the closing section of my policy memo:

Quote:With this information in mind, it is recommended that federal legislation be put in place to expand background check requirements to private transfers and require permanent record keeping by those private sellers. Two funding efforts would come with this: a grant program to improve state reporting to NICS and to facilitate the creation of more state and local background check procedures, and federally supported gun violence research by both the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). For twenty years, federal funding for gun violence research has been cut to nothing. As a result, questions about the effects of socioeconomic factors on gun violence as well as the effects of expanding the disqualifying factors for purchasing a firearm are not being adequately researched to form effective policy.

This policy should see a reduction in gun crimes across the country, particularly in states where they have not previously expanded background checks to include private sales of firearms. The standardization of the requirement for a background check across all states should result in a reduction in interstate firearms trafficking and related crimes. Therefore, there should also be a greater reduction in the gun crime rate in states that already require background checks for private sales.

Implementation of this policy would have to be a legislative action from Congress, resulting in a politically contentious situation. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is well known in its opposition to any efforts toward gun control. The organization argues for greater enforcement of existing law rather than the creation of more laws, but expansion of the background check requirements increases the ability of law enforcement to enforce current laws. Since this does not restrict gun ownership any further than current law and provides an opportunity for better enforcement of existing regulations, it is an action that should be supported by the NRA. Making background checks of private sales will help law enforcement do its job (Braga, 2001).

While there will be funding efforts against this sort of legislation from the NRA and other anti-gun control organizations, the public is behind the concept of universal background checks. A recent report from the Pew Research Center found that 84% of Americans are in favor of requiring background checks for private sales and gun shows (Parker et al., 2017). While the 84% is an overall figure, the percentage of gun owners in the country who agree with this policy is 77%, and 70% of Republican or Republican-leaning gun owners are also in favor of it. These figures show that public support could push legislators toward support of the policy, creating the opportunity for a bipartisan legislative effort.

If implemented, the expanded background checks would be an effort guided by the DOJ and the FBI, but much of the work would be handled at the state level as they strengthen their systems for background checks. These federal agencies would be a resource and would assist the states in the transition. It would put greater emphasis on states doing more to control gun violence within their borders and recognizing that their efforts have a national impact as gun violence crosses borders. This emphasis on state-level responsibility will help to make the policy more politically viable among conservative circles. Even though the law would put a federal regulation in place, it is giving the real power for enforcement to the states themselves.

The funding of gun violence research will allow for future efforts towards effective gun policy to be made. Gun policy, rather than gun control, is specific here. Efforts to stymie research in this area are based on the idea that it will result in gun control efforts by the federal government. There is not sufficient evidence right now to suggest that many of the potential gun control efforts offered would have an impact substantial enough to justify limiting Second Amendment rights. The issue is that there is not sufficient evidence for almost any policy to address gun violence other than what has been suggested here. Research can help policymakers determine where to focus efforts going forward with evidence that they do not currently have in hand.

To paraphrase an article by two researchers previously cited, there are not likely any policies that could be passed that would drop gun violence in the United States the same levels as those of other developed nations (Cook & Ludwig, 2006), but this does not mean we should not make any efforts towards reducing that rate. For twenty years there has been no movement on curbing gun violence at the federal level. The problem of gun violence is one that infects the entire country and can cross borders, as was shown when guns from Missouri ended up in neighboring states when they relaxed their laws. It is time for the federal government to take this action and listen to the people of the United States. They are looking for answers and the government should try to find them.

[Benton]

(10-03-2017, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: In an effort to stop the Las Vegas tragedy thread from becoming a petty back and forth. I thought I would bump this one.


It seems the current debate is now over silencers. If you have ever been inside an indoor firing range you may appreciate the need for silencers and I'm hesitant to vote for their outlaw.

As I've said a number of times: I'm not a huge 2nd Amendment proponent (I own one handgun and one shotgun), but is the answer to outlaw things that law abiding citizens wish to use? If a criminal wants to "silence"   the report he or she will find a way.

To the bold, appreciated on the resurrection.

As far as the silencers/shooting range issue... earplugs start for less than $1, a nice set of shooting cans can go for under $50. As someone else made the point in another thread, silenced weapons are still above 130 db. That's above ranges where damage to your hearing could occur.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm hesitant to outlaw anything without good cause, and I could be convinced that keeping silencers illegal is legit. I've been in gun ranges plenty of times, and as long as you wear ear protection it's no big deal. Plus unless everyone has a silencer it doesn't matter.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2017, 12:23 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, appreciated on the resurrection.

As far as the silencers/shooting range issue... earplugs start for less than $1, a nice set of shooting cans can go for under $50. As someone else made the point in another thread, silenced weapons are still above 130 db. That's above ranges where damage to your hearing could occur.

Depends on the round.  My friend owns an FFL so he can legally possess suppressors (and they are suppressors, not silencers as they do not silence the gun, they suppress the sound) in order to sell them out of state.  You can shoot my AR chambered in 300AAC using subsonic rounds and the round hitting the dirt is louder than the gun firing.  Of course, the 300AAC round was designed with suppression in mind and for sub sonic shooting.  As you pointed out in the other thread, a subsonic .223 round utterly defeats the purpose of the .223 caliber, being a small, but fast projectile.  Honestly, criminals aren't smart or educated enough on firearms to properly use them.  Of the thousand of gun related arrests I've seen I'd say 98%+ of the guns had nothing but FMJ rounds loaded in them.  The reason, they don't know the difference, to them a bullet is a bullet.  It's why these dickheads can get shot ten times and live.  Since the vast majority of gun related homicides are committed by criminals against other criminals I don't think legal suppressors would have any discernible impact on violent crime.

Additionally, how many civilians could hear a loud bang outside and discern a firearm from a firework?  As actually gunshots sound nothing like their movie equivalent I'd say the answer would be close to zero for most locales.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A couple of problem with your proposal.  First it requires private sellers to actually care to go through the background check.  If they do not, you'll never know.  The other issue is that most gun owners, the vast majority of them, will not go through the process and are adamantly opposed to a national gun registry.  The answer to why is very simple, but will be dismissed as paranoia by many; they don't want a list by which the government could easily proceed to confiscation.  If you don't think confiscation is a potential issue then one need do no more that listen the past day and a half.  Australia comes up as an example of a country that "took action" after a mass shooting to, according to them, great success.

For compliance, I am assuming you make the connection that compliance is dependent on registration, which is admittedly an issue. Now, nowhere do I advocate in my paper for a national registry for the specific reasons you mention. I specifically focus on the national level only being responsible for providing support and the legislation itself. The idea is that the policy is having the states implement a program for stronger background checks. Specifically, this would involve uniformity in reporting. The main reason that the focus is on state, and even local, level action is because in another section of the memo I address the evidence that when background checks are performed at levels closer to the individual, the checks are stronger.

What this means is that checks being performed at a local law enforcement level are stronger than a state level which are stronger than a federal level. Right now, states are only mandated to check with the federal level, which is the weakest. We see a correlation between lower rates of gun violence and lower level checks. Having this at the lower levels also means we can decentralize any information on the firearms themselves. This leads to the reason that I make no mention of a registry and do not bring it up in the memo.

If I was not working within a constraint on the number of pages, what you would have seen was a proposal for record keeping requirements for private individuals involved in the transfer of ownership of a firearm. By mandating this record is kept, there is still a paper trail of ownership for a legally purchased firearm that can be followed utilizing a warrant process. If there is a break in the transfer chain, the last person to have owned the firearm legally (which could be verified with a background check record performed at the time, even if there is no record of the firearm itself) could be held criminally liable for actions performed with the firearm. This is a way to help insure compliance with the law without relying on any sort of centralized registry at the municipal, state, or federal levels.

Most firearm owners are law-abiding in their ownership of their firearms, and they wish to continue to be. I understand concerns with a registry, but we must recognize that there needs to be some way to hold people accountable for the firearms being used in crimes. The vast majority of firearms used in violent crimes were originally purchased in a legal manner. If we have a way that we can track the firearm from original purchase to the last legal owner, even it is takes more legwork than a registry, it helps provide some accountability there. We would also have to put in place requirements for reporting firearm thefts.

[Bengalzona]

(Copying my post from the Los Vegas shooter thread)

I think it is reasonable to make bump fire or slide fire stocks and trigger cranks as regulated as full automatic weapons are now. They are, for all practical purposes, work-arounds to gain comparable rate of fire to fully automatic weapons. I would sleep better knowing that someone had to jump through a few hoops to buy these things rather than just grab their beer and hop down to Cabelas, which is probably where the Los Vegas shooter bought his.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/news/a28479/vegas-shooter-bump-stock/